Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Scientific Advancement vs. Encroaching on God

Posted on: November 2, 2011 - 12:08pm

Marty Hamrick

Posts: 227

Joined: 2010-12-31

Offline

Scientific Advancement vs. Encroaching on God

Often when I post of certain breakthroughs in science, some theist will warn of the dangers of "playing god". When I posted of Dr. Persinger's succes with the "God Helmet", many theists were quick to tell me that Dr. Persinger wasn't really re creating religious and mystical experiences because a "real" RE would "transcend" what Persinger was creating in his lab. Persinger believes that all RE's are produced WITHIN the brain and nothing external. He believes this because this is what his finding show, no evidence of anything external. Theists seem to get agitated by things like this as it is looked upon as an attempt to "debunk" or least challenge their faith.

But what if medical "miracles" such as those claimed at places like Lourdes, France were linked to a recessant gene found in some people? What if this explained the extremely small number of so called "bonifide miracles"? What if the action could be duplicated and successful treatments for things like cancer or Parkinson's Disease were found this way? I'm sure theists would be divided into two camps, those that saw it as God sharing his widom with science and pouring his miracles out to more people and there would be those who would see it as an encroachment upon God's wisdom, that God "knew what he was doing" with the small number of "miracles" and science was messing around where it shouldn't. Which camp would you be in and why?

There are many things in science that make theists nervous. Cloning, genetic manipulation, weather control and others things. What makes you nervous and why? Christian science fiction and fantasy writer, CS Lewis saw any attempts man might make at interstellar space flight to be blasphemy because of the vast distances God put between stars. How do you feel about this and why? Should science be harnessed in what it's allowed to reveal about the "mysteries" of life? Are some areas of knowledge sacred? Why or why not? Many theists see science as one of God's blessings while others see it as satanic "competetiton" Still others see it as both, where do you stand?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Which evidence would you prefer? The transitional fossil collections? Or would you like to study the fact that genetics and DNA show common ancestry to be a fact of life. Or is there something else that would be more preferable to you?

Transitional fossils? Evolution requires gradual changes in the fossil record. The evidence doesn't show gradual change. Did you forget the Cambrian Explosion? Genetics and DNA don't show common ancestry they show evidence of a common designer.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Which evidence would you prefer? The transitional fossil collections? Or would you like to study the fact that genetics and DNA show common ancestry to be a fact of life. Or is there something else that would be more preferable to you?

Transitional fossils? Evolution requires gradual changes in the fossil record. The evidence doesn't show gradual change. Did you forget the Cambrian Explosion? Genetics and DNA don't show common ancestry they show evidence of a common designer.

Transitional forms? Look in a mirror.

Transitional fossils? Check out a museum.

Cambrian explosion? Only for aquatic creatures and it still took a long time. Or did you find a fossil bunny and are keeping it secret?

Your 2nd LOT argument fails because you think that the universe is only one system when in fact there are multiple systems inside of it.

You claim that human body and the universe are complex so they must be designed. You disregard that the designer must be more complex than both in order to complete said designs. Who designed the designer, etc?

If you claim that the Judeo-Christian God designed the human body and the universe you are doing that God great insult. There is so much shoddy design there that if Yahweh designed them both he's evil and incompetent.

These are old counter arguments I bring up. I keep bringing them up because you have offered nothing new.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Which evidence would you prefer? The transitional fossil collections? Or would you like to study the fact that genetics and DNA show common ancestry to be a fact of life. Or is there something else that would be more preferable to you?

Transitional fossils? Evolution requires gradual changes in the fossil record. The evidence doesn't show gradual change. Did you forget the Cambrian Explosion? Genetics and DNA don't show common ancestry they show evidence of a common designer.

There are about 500,000 fossil species so far identified and pretty much all the fossils we have found (99.9999 per cent) are of extinct creatures - they are no longer gambling about the meadows of the Earth. Despite this, their similar morphology shows they are directly related to living creatures to varying degrees. What supernatural mechanism explains this? Also, could you please outline where all the extinct creatures went from a biblical perspective. Did god have false starts with creation or did they die in the flood? Or aren't we meant to know? I'd also be keen to know what all the banana DNA is doing in Ray Comfort's genetic signature. Thanks in advance for my enlightenment.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Which evidence would you prefer? The transitional fossil collections? Or would you like to study the fact that genetics and DNA show common ancestry to be a fact of life. Or is there something else that would be more preferable to you?

Transitional fossils? Evolution requires gradual changes in the fossil record. The evidence doesn't show gradual change. Did you forget the Cambrian Explosion? Genetics and DNA don't show common ancestry they show evidence of a common designer.

First of all the so called cambrian explosion took place over millions of years, hardly a short period. Not to mention the fact that we can trace morphology in fossils as well as study of genetics to show common ancestry.

We have watches,airplanes,computers etc. which need to be designed by an intelligent mind therefore logically that would imply a designer.

More accurately, these things are not observed forming spontaneously, and there is no hypothesis which would explain their existence without a creator, which implies they were created.

Lee2216 wrote:

The human body and the universe is designed

And here you make a leap of faith, which invalidates your logic. Prove that life cannot form spontaneously under any conditions observed in the universe, and prove that evolution doesn't happen. Also prove that the universe must have been created.

If you can accomplish even ONE of these things, you will become one of the most respected individuals in all human history, and aquire at least one nobel prize.

Benefit is subjective. You keep referring to processes as if they were intelligently driven, when evidence is to the contrary. What is so logical and intelligent about mixing the reproductive system with the waste management system? If life were designed, it would be logical to keep them entirely separate if only to prevent contamination. It would be STUPID to mix them together. So clearly there was no intelligence behind our reproductive and waste management systems.

Lee2216 wrote:

You believe in evolution don't you?

No more than we believe we exist. Evolution is proven fact. The evidence in its favour is overwhelming. The evidence against is non-existent.
We've watched it happening. Proving it is as simple as doing research; without using theistic resources, which make up false ideas of evolution because they're too lazy and/or stupid to look up how it actually works.

Lee2216 wrote:

you need to show me how all life originated from one cell of unknown origin.

Life arising from non-living inorganic matter through natural processes is a leap of faith.

Vastet wrote:

Prove that life cannot form spontaneously under any conditions observed in the universe, and prove that evolution doesn't happen.

No one has ever observed a living organism come into existence from a non-living substance or mix of substances under any conditions.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Proving it is as simple as doing research; without using theistic resources, which make up false ideas of evolution because they're too lazy and/or stupid to look up how it actually works.

Atheists and theists use the same data, the difference comes in how the data is interpreted so I don't know what you mean by theistic resources.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

immune to the concept of time, Lee. There's evolution and there's time. Short amounts of time and long amounts of time. These periods of time allow changing environments to favour advantageous mutations.

Stop trying to chop a single process in two. Your labeling is arbitrary and meaningless.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Immune to the concept of time, Lee. There's evolution and there's time. Short amounts of time and long amounts of time. These periods of time allow changing environments to favour advantageous mutations.

The random process of Darwinian evolution needs far more time than billions of years to manufacture the biological complexity and diversity we see on earth.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

No it doesn't. All calculations that suggest that suffer from the same flaws. They assume there was one first life form, and that it slowly reproduced and spread. It falls apart when the possibility of multiple "first" life forms, and "types" of life forms is introduced.

If you are using a different calculation, please present it for analysis.

They assume there was one first life form, and that it slowly reproduced and spread.

That's what Darwin's theory proposes isn't it?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

No. Darwin's theory only covers what happens after life already exists. It provides no information as to how life began.
Technically, evolution doesn't refute creationism. And creationism doesn't refute evolution. They could both be right, if I'm going to be perfectly honest.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life began from non-life. It is a separate theory, and much less supported. Which is not to say it has no support, merely that no hypothesis yet presented can adequately explain the entire process to a point that the majority of the scientific community can agree on it.
But even abiogenesis doesn't refute creationism. If creationism and abiogenesis are both true (and they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts), abiogenesis is merely how god created life.

No. Darwin's theory only covers what happens after life already exists.

Which is what I said. But, Darwin's hypothesis was all life forms evolved from a single simple life form to more complex life forms.

Vastet wrote:

They could both be right, if I'm going to be perfectly honest.

That's not logically possible. Your either pregnant or your not.

Vastet wrote:

Abiogenesis is the theory that life began from non-life.

I know what Abiogenesis is. The funny thing is that's what Athiest's believe. Life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, moral from amoral. Yet, you Athiest's make fun of people for having faith when you yourselves demonstrate a much greater faith in macro-evolution which is junk science to begin with.

Vastet wrote:

If creationism and abiogenesis are both true (and they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.)

Again it's not logically possible for both to be true. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. They have nothing what so ever to do with each other. I don't think you know what you believe.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Darwin's hypothesis was all life forms evolved from a single simple life form to more complex life forms.

Darwin got a few things wrong. The theory of evolution has come a long way since he made his original hypothesis.

Quote:

That's not logically possible. Your either pregnant or your not.

That's not the case. The catholic church has adopted evolution as a fact. And while you're clearly not a catholic, your beliefs are close enough to theirs that you'll have to explain to me why they can accept it and you can't. Is the bible a literal account in your opinion? Or is it metaphorical? Or both?

Quote:

I know what Abiogenesis is. The funny thing is that's what Athiest's believe.

Some do, some don't. Not all atheists are scientists, and not all scientists accept abiogenesis. Nor do all atheists.
However, there IS evidence that it can happen. All life really is, at it's most basic state, is chemicals interacting with other chemicals. All that needs to happen for life to exist is

certain chemicals interacting. Studies done in labs have so far failed to refute the possibility that said interactions can produce life, and have shown that interactions favouring life could possibily produce life.

Quote:

Life from non-life

Now there's a problem here. What exactly defines life? The answer is still open to a large degree. There is no comprehensive definition of life that can seperate it completely from non life. Anything that can reproduce and must consume energy is the general accepted definition. But technically a virus doesn't reproduce, yet is accepted as a life form by most. And fire both reproduces and consumes, but isn't considered alive by most.
We do not have a fine line which seperates the living from the non living. There's a grey area between a chemical interaction and a life form.

Intelligence is even less understood.

None of this has anything to do with faith for us. We accept that there are things we don't know, and don't try to fill in the blanks with magic.

Yet, you Athiest's make fun of people for having faith when you yourselves demonstrate a much greater faith in macro-evolution which is junk science to begin with.

Sigh. Macroevolution as a dog giving birth to a fish is certainly bullshit. But macroevolution as a compilation of microevolution over long periods of time is not.
The problem here is that you view species as static, when every generation is an evolutionary "stage". It takes multiple generations for stages to divert lineages sufficiently to describe as more than one species. It takes exponentially more generations to divert lineages sufficiently to describe them as different genera.
Evolutionary changes depend on a lot of things, especially the environment. Predators, prey, climate, and more.
The more changes a life form goes through over the generations, the less identifiable it is with it's ancestry.
DNA has given us the key to providing lineage studies that link life through time, and was the ultimate proof.

It has nothing to do with faith in something that isn't proven, but faith in something that is proven. Two different definitions of faith.
Do you have faith that two plus two equals four? Do you recognise the difference between that and faith in a god?

Quote:

I don't think you know what you believe.

You're getting closer to understanding, but you aren't quite there yet.

I know what I believe, I don't know what I don't believe. I don't believe in the christian god, but I don't know there isn't anything that could fit some definition of a god. As such, I simply don't believe in a god. But should someone ever provide evidence, I'd be more than willing to review it. And would be capable of believing in a god should I ever be convinced there is one. I think so at least. I've never believed in one, but I've never had reason to either. Evidence would give me a reason, but there is no evidence.
So I, and most other atheists, are constantly waiting for god to show himself. If there is one. Probably not.

I know what Abiogenesis is. The funny thing is that's what Athiest's believe. Life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, moral from amoral. Yet, you Athiest's make fun of people for having faith when you yourselves demonstrate a much greater faith in macro-evolution which is junk science to begin with.

You, Lee, are 65 per cent oxygen, 18 per cent carbon, and 10 per cent hydrogen. The other 7 per cent of your body by weight is composed of 60 chemical trace elements all of which are found in the earth's crust. You are a combination of 6.7 x 10 to the power of 27 atoms, none of which is 'alive'. And when you die, your atoms will be recycled through other organisms on and on for the entire lifespan of the universe. The atoms that comprise Lee are already 14.6 billion years old yet this is not amazement enough for you.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Really? That's not the case? You can be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time?

Vastet wrote:

The catholic church has adopted evolution as a fact.

So what! The Catholic Church is not Christian and is apostate.

Vastet wrote:

And while you're clearly not a catholic, your beliefs are close enough to theirs that you'll have to explain to me why they can accept it and you can't.

My beliefs are nowhere close to what Catholics believe. I can't accept something that is false and doesn't happen.

Vastet wrote:

Is the bible a literal account in your opinion? Or is it metaphorical? Or both?

A literal account of what?

Vastet wrote:

However, there IS evidence that it can happen. All life really is, at it's most basic state, is chemicals interacting with other chemicals.

There is NO evidence that abiogenesis occurs. Life at it's most basic state is more complex than anything a human has ever designed. Life is more than chemicals reacting with chemicals.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

We accept that there are things we don't know, and don't try to fill in the blanks with magic.

You fill in the blanks with a lot of magic! Life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence and moral from amoral. That's the greatest magic trick in the world.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Macroevolution as a dog giving birth to a fish is certainly bullshit. But macroevolution as a compilation of microevolution over long periods of time is not.

In your first sentence you say macroevolution is bs then in your second sentence you say it's possible over long periods of time. Double-minded are we? The fossil record says this didn't happen through long periods of time. There was a sudden explosion of all different kinds of species. Secondly, you have species alive today that are of the exact same body type as fossils found from hundreds of millions of years ago.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Logically impossible! Faith is belief or trust in someone or something that can't be proven.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Macroevolution as a dog giving birth to a fish is certainly bullshit. But macroevolution as a compilation of microevolution over long periods of time is not.

In your first sentence you say macroevolution is bs then in your second sentence you say it's possible over long periods of time. Double-minded are we? The fossil record says this didn't happen through long periods of time. There was a sudden explosion of all different kinds of species. Secondly, you have species alive today that are of the exact same body type as fossils found from hundreds of millions of years ago.

No he said that macro-evolution in the way you define it (dog birthing a fish) is bull. Such a being would disprove the theory of evolution. Macro-evolution as it is defined by the people who work in the field exists and has been observed - look up "observed instances of speciation".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

You, Lee, are 65 per cent oxygen, 18 per cent carbon, and 10 per cent hydrogen. The other 7 per cent of your body by weight is composed of 60 chemical trace elements all of which are found in the earth's crust.

Wow! I didn't know you believed what the Bible says? Then the LORD God formed a manfrom the dust of the ground (there's your 60 chemical trace elements) and breathed into his nostrils the breath (there's your 65% oxygen) of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

You, Lee, are 65 per cent oxygen, 18 per cent carbon, and 10 per cent hydrogen. The other 7 per cent of your body by weight is composed of 60 chemical trace elements all of which are found in the earth's crust.

Wow! I didn't know you believed what the Bible says? Then the LORD God formed a manfrom the dust of the ground (there's your 60 chemical trace elements) and breathed into his nostrils the breath (there's your 65% oxygen) of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

So now you're saying that you have proof for abiogenesis as long as there's magic involved? Make up your mind son.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

So you're saying Vastet's a Christian? I mean, after all, you just quoted the main points of your theology and gave them to him.

No, I defined the atheist worldview.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

A worldview that is so similar to the biblical view of creation that you now claim they are indistinguishable.

You don't believe in abiogenesis but creation ex nihilo is no problem for you?

They are not similar at all. There is a big difference. Ex nihilo - God created the universe out of nothing. Abiogenesis - nothing created the universe out of nothing.

jcgadfly wrote:

Moral coming from amoral? You haven't read the Bible, have you? You believe the most amoral being in the universe created beings that formed a moral system in spite of him. Make me work a little, huh?

You don't have a standard which you can judge what is right and wrong.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

A demonstration of your reading comprehension level. Pre grade 6 is my estimate. I know you can do better.

Ad Hominem! Not surprising!

Vastet wrote:

Over millions of years. Not in a day. Or a minute. But Eons.

Which is still not enough time for evolution to take place.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

A demonstration of your reading comprehension level. Pre grade 6 is my estimate. I know you can do better.

Ad Hominem! Not surprising!

Actually that fallacy only applies when an insult isn't also a direct refutation. In this example, such is not the case. You misread my argument, which by definition is a demonstration of poor reading comprehension.

Lee2216 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Over millions of years. Not in a day. Or a minute. But Eons.

Which is still not enough time for evolution to take place.

You have still failed to provide evidence of this despite the fact it's been requested.

A demonstration of your reading comprehension level. Pre grade 6 is my estimate. I know you can do better.

Ad Hominem! Not surprising!

Vastet wrote:

Over millions of years. Not in a day. Or a minute. But Eons.

Which is still not enough time for evolution to take place.

Since that dreaded speciation that makes you quiver with fear has been observed. you're assertion is wrong. What you need to do is find the crocoduck you think "macro-evolution" would create. See, doing that would make evolutionary biologists abandon the theory because such a chimera would be a violation of it.

Happy hunting!

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

You have still failed to provide evidence of this despite the fact it's been requested.

I'm not going to give you evidence. The evidence that I would supply would be discredited due to the source. I don't throw pearls to the swine! The evidence is out there you just don't want to believe it due to your presuppositions.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

You have still failed to provide evidence of this despite the fact it's been requested.

I'm not going to give you evidence. The evidence that I would supply would be discredited due to the source. I don't throw pearls to the swine! The evidence is out there you just don't want to believe it due to your presuppositions.

In other words - "I won't give you evidence because I can't give you evidence. It doesn't exist unless you are willing to redefine science to include alchemy, astrology and magic."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I don't waste my time discussing algebra with my dog, Milo, in spite of the fact that he will sit politely for hours as I talk to him, only interjecting occasionally, or endangering the stuff on my coffee table with his tail. I don't waste my time because in the end, he still won't be able to graph a function... he's a dog.

I don't waste my time discussing science with creationists for the same reason, in the end, they won't get it because they believe in magic and magical solutions.

So, Lee... tell me how the magic works?How did your god do it?Can you describe the process of creation from a magical standpoint?

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

2. There are certain things that are harmful to the continuation of the species. If that's not objective enough for you and you need magic man, fine. It's close enough for me.

What certain things?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20